Monday, October 11, 2004

No weapons of mass destruction

The conclusion of the Duelfer report is devastating:

There were no stockpiles of WMD, or programmes to produce WMD. Despite public statements made before the war by Bush, Blair and officials and pundits on both sides of the Atlantic to the contrary, the ISG report concludes that all of Iraq's WMD stockpiles had been destroyed in 1991, and WMD programmes and facilities dismantled by 1996.

http://argument.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=570477

Nevertheless, a substantial minority of the general public continues to support the President's decision to invade Iraq. Tragically, it may be enough to get him elected.

How could so many continue to support the war, when the reasons for it have been revealed to be utterly false? The answer is chilling -- there are those who like war. At least as a spectator sport. I believe that there are a large number of people who believe that might is right, and who get some kind of vicarious satisfaction over the defeat of an official "enemy." I put enemy in quotes, because Saddam was an enemy only because the powers that be in this country declared him as such. Before he was an enemy, he was an ally. Never mind such niceties.

The implications of these two observations are hard to ignore. A large part of the population will support a war for any reason, or no reason at all, against any official enemy. And any country can be turned into an enemy at will.

Iraq in this sense was just an experiment. How ready are the American people to support unbridled wars of aggression? We find out in early November.

Wednesday, October 06, 2004

Yesterday's Most Stupid Criticism of Kerry

Yesterday’s absolute stupidest criticism of John Kerry.

Power Line (http://www.powerlineblog.com/) concludes that John Kerry is unfit to be President because, when asked by a reporter what was the largest deer he ever bagged, Kerry mentioned the one that got away – “once had an incredible encounter with the most enormous buck - I don't know, 16 points or something. It was just huge.” Kerry said that he was hunting in Cape Cod at the time.

It may not be immediately obvious to you why this disqualifies Kerry from holding office. But then you might not be a totally rabid, incoherent wingnut, as the author of this piece, an attorney who likes to call himself “Hindrocket” (what is that name about?), appears to be.

Here’s Mr. Hindrocket’s logic. Everybody knows that there is only sand on Cape Cod. Therefore Kerry is lying about hunting there, or at least lying about the size of the deer that he didn’t shoot. So if Kerry has to exaggerate the size of the deer he didn’t shoot, who knows what else he’s capable of.

Now I could challenge Mr. Hindrocket’s logic, I suppose. I could point out that exaggeration in reverse is just as bad, especially when one is talking about budget deficits, costs of invading other countries or costs of Medicare programs.

But why bother. Mr. Hindrocket is just plain ignorant, and that, combined with an unshakeable confidence in matters in which he is ignorant, results in the stupidest criticism of Kerry that I read about yesterday.

From Hunting Cape Cod (http://www.capecodoutdoors.com/hunting.html), we learn that there are so many deer on Cape Cod that Doe tags are granted at 100 percent. I don’t hunt and I don’t know what that means, but I think it means that it is possible that John Kerry was not lying about hunting deer on Cape Cod.

Ok, but surely he was exaggerating about the size of the deer he did not shoot? The aforementioned site goes on to say that “these aren't little Florida Deer either. Yearly, 200lb. bucks and 175 pt. racks appear at the weighing stations.” Well, I take it on faith that those are big deer. 200 lbs seems big to me.

And oh, about there being only sand on Cape Cod, Mr. Hindrocket might be interested to know that the same web site adds that almost every town in Cape Cod has a town forest. Sounds like a place deer might be found.

I will confess that I did not investigate Hunting Cape Cod, so I can’t say for sure that this is not just some bogus web site set up by Kerry operatives to cover his tracks (no pun intended). I’ll leave it to others to dig deeper into this important issue.

Pathetic Right Wing Commentary Runner Up

Here is the second most pathetic criticism of Kerry that I read in
yesterday's right wing blogs. You may remember that Charles Johnson, the right leaning
leader of that right leaning West Coast Cult, Little Green Footballs,
was trying to get a "jacketgate" scandal started, based on Kerry
taking something out of his jacket and putting it on the podium before
last week's debate. This would-be scandal fell flat on its face, as
the object turned out to be a pen. Kerry's campaign pled guilty to
the candidate using a pen to take notes, and the rest of the world
moved on.

But not Johnson. Johnson, who relentlessly flogged Dan Rather for not
apologizing fast enough for the Killian documents, has proudly
announced that he will not apologize for anything. Why? Because
Johnson, blaming the mainstream media (LGF blames the "MSM" for
everything), insists that the questions were legitimate. UHF, yeh,
legitimate questions about what Kerry took out of his pocket before
the debate, but not legitimate questions about Bush's military
service.

Never mind all that. Johnson gets downright weird when he goes on to
lament the total moral depravity of the Kerry campaign:

"It's a bit depressing that this country is now willing to accept
blatant flouting of debate rules, because it was only a pen. Kerry
was specifically forbidden to do this, by rules to which he agreed
after much negotiation; but he did it anyway, apparently without even
thinking."

I guess I could say it's a lot more depressing that this country is
now willing to accept Bush's blatant flouting of his national guard
commitment, because Dan Rather ran a story using unverified
documents. But that's a different story.

Let's examine Johnson's statement that Kerry blatantly flouted rules
that specifically forbid him to take a pen out of his pocket and put
it on the podium.

I have found two rules that seem to be applicable.


Rule 5(c) states that "No props, notes, charts, diagrams, or other
writings or other tangible things may be brought into the debate by
any candidate."

Rule 5(d) states that "Notwithstanding subparagraph 5(c), the
candidates may take notes during the debate on the size, color, and
type of paper each prefers and using the type of pen or pencil that
each prefers. Each candidate must submit to the staff of the
Commission prior to the debate all such paper and any pens or pencils
with which a candidate may wish to take notes during the debate, and
the staff of the Commission will place such paper, pens, and pencils
on the podium, table or other structure to be used by the candidate in
that debate."


So, Kerry was entitled to use the pen. That's the only thing that
mattered. How the pen gets to the podium is a triviality. There is a
maxim in the law "de minimis lex non curat." The law does not care
about small insignificant matters. The law recognizes that it is
impossible to draw up rules that cover every possible eventuality, and
it is impossible to follow every little insignificant rule that can be
written. We look to the substance of the rules. In this case, the
substance was that Kerry was entitled to use a pen of his choice. As
long as the pen was not objectionable (and it was not), then the
details about getting the pen to the podium would be considered "de
minimis."


Of course, we don't even know whether Kerry's pen was submitted to the
commission or not. Since we don't know that, we can't say that Kerry
violated the rule, even de minimis, much less "flagrantly" violated
it. For all we know, the commission approved Kerry's pen.

Johnson shows that he is totally out of touch with the world. The
reason that the country is willing to ignore Kerry's use of "just a
pen" is because it is just a pen. People understand what's important
and what's not. The country understands that a 32 page set of rules
for a debate is as ridiculous as the 26 paragraphs of "terms and
conditions" that free web sites make you agree to. All laws and all
rules are not created equally. Everybody is constantly triaging rules
and regulations all day long. There are those we have to follow,
those that nobody follows, and a few that we're not really certain
about. The country, unlike Johnson, instinctively understands how
silly that rule about putting the pens on the podium is. It's
kindergarten stuff.

The irony is that Johnson, like most of the wingnuts, crucifies Kerry
over the "global test" issue. They want a president who runs
roughshod over rules of the United Nations and is willing to invade countries
in violation of international law. Apparently, however, this same
president has to let somebody else tell him what pen he can use to take notes.

Tuesday, October 05, 2004

Honorable Discharge

Whenever somebody uses Bush's honorable discharge as proof that he "did his duty," remember that another mass murderer, albeit on a smaller scale, also received an honorable discharge.

John Allen Muhammad. More widely known as the D.C. Sniper. Here's a brief summary of his exemplary military service:

Convicted in a summary court-martial for failing to report to duty station on time, three counts of willfully disobeying an order, one count of striking a noncommissioned officer, one count of wrongfully taking property and one count of being absent without leave.

So if a nobody like JAM could get an honorable discharge with such a spotty record, imagine what the scion of one of America's most powerful families could get away with, and still be honorably discharged. No wonder Bush refuses to answer details about his service and continues to hide behind his honorable discharge.

Here's an idea. On the first Tuesday of this coming November, let's give Bush another "honorable discharge."

Monday, October 04, 2004

Suspect Sources

The wingnuts went absolutely looney aver "Rathergate." Nobody needs to be reminded that Rathergate refers to Dan Rather's story about Bush's non-military service, which was based on documents that are generally regarded as being forged. To this day do not know the source of those documents, and the wingnuts have been steadfast in their insistence that Rather resign, or be fired or perhaps executed.

Oh.

The curious thing here is that while the documents Rather relied on may be suspect, nobody has challenged the accuracy of the information in the documents or the overall truth of Rather's story.

Ok.

Now, since the wingnuts are so concerned about relying on questionable sources, you would expect them to be at the forefront of a movement to impeach Bush for using unreliable sources as the basis for invading Iraq. Well, you would be wrong.

Let's compare.

Rather: distinguished career spanning dozens of years. Used unverified source as basis for story that was basically accurate. He should resign.

Bush: short four year career saw worst terror attack in U.S. history, a million jobs have been lost, and a huge budget surplus was turned into record deficits in order to fund tax cuts for the rich. Used unverified sources as basis for disastrous invasion of Iraq. The information relied on for invading Iraq now known to be false.

He should be elected for a second term?

Somebody help me out here. Isn't there some awful inconsistency here?

Suspect Sources

The wingnuts went absolutely looney aver "Rathergate." Nobody needs to be reminded that Rathergate refers to Dan Rather's story about Bush's non-military service, which was based on documents that are generally regarded as being forged. To this day do not know the source of those documents, and the wingnuts have been steadfast in their insistence that Rather resign, or be fired or perhaps executed.

Oh.

The curious thing here is that while the documents Rather relied on may be suspect, nobody has challenged the accuracy of the information in the documents or the overall truth of Rather's story.

Ok.

Now, since the wingnuts are so concerned about relying on questionable sources, you would expect them to be at the forefront of a movement to impeach Bush for using unreliable sources as the basis for invading Iraq. Well, you would be wrong.

Let's compare.

Rather: distinguished career spanning dozens of years. Used unverified source as basis for story that was basically accurate. He should resign.

Bush: short four year career saw worst terror attack in U.S. history, a million jobs have been lost, and a huge budget surplus was turned into record deficits in order to fund tax cuts for the rich. Used unverified sources as basis for disastrous invasion of Iraq. The information relied on for invading Iraq now known to be false.

He should be elected for a second term?

Somebody help me out here. Isn't there some awful inconsistency here?